This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

The words "than now"? Pre-entitlement pre-welfare is being compared to the time of entitlement and welfare. He is clearly comparing then to now. Hence, his comment clearly states they were happier then than now.

Your argument has just moved from absurd to the outright disingenuous.

Wrong. Pre- is the time being asked about. Nothing more.

He was speaking of his personal experience of that time. He made no comparison.

Your assertions are nothing more than the product of biased convoluted thoughts.

There was no comparison made.
You can show no comparison.
He was asked about a specific period of time. He answered to the question. No comparison was made.
Your assertions are nothing more than the product of biased convoluted thoughts

A married man resisting the urge to boink the redhead in the office next door is not quite the same as a homosexual trying to live all his/her life not being able to have sex at all or being forced to have sex with a woman/man. It would be like forcing a straight man to have sex with other men. You want that? Do you even understand that?

Given the choice between sex with a man and celibacy the choice would be pretty easy. But then if I thought that there was absolutely nothing wrong with having sex with a man as a man then the choice of whether or not to be Christian would be pretty easy as well. Being Christian is voluntary.

I think that there are shallow people who have no idea what they are talking about. Like I said, being gay and told to be straight is like if someone told you that you must now only have sex with other men or live celibate. It's not being denied sex with Ann Margret ot Raquel Welsch.

I'm not telling a gay person to be straight. Your argument falls apart from there.

Again. Imagine yourself in an alternate world where opposite sex couples were considered sinful, and you had to either have gay butt sex or live life with no one. How would you feel, especially if some Homo told you you were a sinner just for thinking of some sexy woman?

If I was very determined in my belief that married, lifetime-monogamous heterosexual sex was good and not a sin then I would not ascribe to a religion that said otherwise. If I believed that the religion that said that married, lifetime-monogamous heterosexual sex was a sin was the righteous path set forth by God then I would battle my own personal desires in order to try and walk the righteous path.

In other words, I'd be about the same but fighting different urges.

I seriously doubt you have even the remotest idea what there people go through, which is why you anger me so much when you get on your high horse.

You seriously doubt a great many things you are in fact wholly ignorant about, I find. I also really hope that is a typo and you really meant to type "their people" because that would be hilarious.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

He answered as to his personal experience of the time. He made no comparison.

He did both. Likely through the lenses of his owns bias. He was factually wrong concerning the blues. But he make a clear comparison between that time and pre-welfare. He states it clearly.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.